ADOLOR CORPORATION: Asks PA Court To Dismiss Securities Lawsuit ---------------------------------------------------------------Adolor Corporation asked the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, one of its directors and certain of its officers.

On April 21,2004, a lawsuit was filed, seeking unspecified damages on behalf of a putative class of persons who purchased Company common stock between September 23, 2003 and January 14, 2004. The complaint alleges violations of Section 10(b) andSection 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with the announcement of the results of certain studies in the Company's Phase III clinical trials for Entereg, which allegedly had the effect of artificially inflating the price of the Company's common stock.

This suit has been consolidated with three subsequent actions asserting similar claims under the caption: "In re Adolor Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 2:04-cv-01728." On December 29, 2004, the district court issued an order appointing the Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters' Pension Fund as Lead Plaintiff. The appointed Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on February 28, 2005. That Complaint purported to extend the class period, so as to bring claims on behalf of a putative class of Company shareholders who purchased stock between September 23, 2003 and December 22, 2004. The Complaint also adds as defendants the Company's Board of Directors asserting claims against them and the other defendants for violation of Section 11 and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the Company's public offering of stock in November 2003.

The Company and the management and director defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint on April 29, 2005. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on June 28, 2005, and the defendants' reply is due on August 12, 2005.

The suit is styled "Greater Pennsylvania Carpenters Pension Fund v. Adolor Corporation, et al., case no. 2:04-cv-01728-RBS," filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, under Judge R. Barclay Surrick.

ALLIANCE CAPITAL: Asks NY Court To Dismiss Consolidated Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Alliance Capital Management LP asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss the consolidated securities class action filed against it, styled "Aucoin, et al. v. Alliance Capital Management L.P., et al." The suit also names as defendants:

(5) certain current and former directors of the AllianceBernstein Funds, and

(6) unnamed Doe defendants

The first suit filed names the AllianceBernstein Funds as nominal defendants. The Complaint was filed by an alleged shareholder of the AllianceBernstein Growth & Income Fund. The Aucoin Complaint alleges, among other things:

(i) that certain of the defendants improperly authorized the payment of excessive commissions and other fees from AllianceBernstein Fund assets to broker-dealers in exchange for preferential marketing services,

(ii) that certain of the defendants misrepresented and omitted from registration statements and other reports material facts concerning such payments, and

(iii) that certain defendants caused such conduct as control persons of other defendants.

The Complaint asserts claims for violation of Sections 34(b), 36(b) and 48(a) of the Investment Company Act, Sections 206 and 215 of the Advisers Act, breach of common law fiduciary duties, and aiding and abetting breaches of common law fiduciary duties. Plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages and punitive damages, rescission of their contracts with Alliance Capital, including recovery of all fees paid to Alliance Capital pursuant to such contracts, an accounting of all AllianceBernstein Fund-related fees, commissions and soft dollar payments, and restitution of all unlawfully or discriminatorily obtained fees and expenses.

Since June 22, 2004, nine additional lawsuits making factual allegations substantially similar to those in the first suit were filed against the Company and certain other defendants. All nine of the lawsuits were brought as class actions filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, assert claims substantially identical to the Aucoin Complaint, and are brought on behalf of shareholders of AllianceBernstein Funds.

On February 2, 2005, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended class action complaint that asserts claims substantially similar to the lawsuits referenced above. On April 14, 2005, defendants moved to dismiss the Aucoin Consolidated Amended Complaint. That motion is pending.

ALLIED MUTUAL: Lawsuit Settlement Hearing Set October 7, 2005-------------------------------------------------------------A fairness hearing will be held for the class action case, Mary M. Rieff and Terrence A. Kilburg vs. John E. Evans, et al., No. CE35780, Polk County, Iowa District Court, on behalf of all persons who owned an insurance policy issued by Allied Mutual Insurance Company and held that policy on February 18, 1993.

The Court will hold the at 9:00 a.m. on October 7, 2005, at the Polk County Courthouse, 500 Mulberry Street, Des Moines, IA, 50309.

The Plaintiffs and the class are represented by the law firms of Adkins, Kelston & Zavez, P.C., in Boston, Massachusetts; Lane & Waterman, LLP, in Davenport, Iowa; Barrack, Rodos & Bacine in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Brady & O'Shea, P.C., in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.

AMERISOURCEBERGEN CORPORATION: HI Court Okays Fraud Settlement--------------------------------------------------------------The Hawaii Circuit Court granted final approval of the settlement of the class action filed against AmeriSourceBergen Corporation's subsidiary PharMerica, Inc. on behalf of consumers who allegedly received recycled medications prior to February 2000 from a PharMerica institutional pharmacy in Honolulu, Hawaii.

The plaintiffs alleged that it was a deceptive trade practice under Hawaii law to sell recycled medications (i.e., medications that had previously been dispensed and then returned to the pharmacy) without disclosing that the medications were recycled. There were no allegations of physical harm to any patient and the law in Hawaii has subsequently changed to permit the use of recycled medications under certain conditions.

In December 2004, PharMerica reached a tentative settlement of this matter. The settlement has become final with the Hawaii Circuit Court having approved the agreed-upon terms.

AUGUST TECHNOLOGY: Investors File Suit V. Rudolph Merger in MN --------------------------------------------------------------August Technology Corporation faces a class action filed in Minnesota Superior Court, opposing its proposed merger with Nanometrics Inc. and Rudolph Technologies, Inc. The suits also name each of the Company's board of directors as defendants:

(1) Jeff O'Dell,

(2) James Bernards,

(3) Roger Gower,

(4) Michael Wright and

(5) Linda Hall Whitman

Two separate lawsuits that purported to be class action claims were initially filed on February 4, 2005 and February 14,2005 on behalf of the Company's shareholders. Both lawsuits were brought in Minnesota State Court and claimed that the directors had breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with their actions in agreeing to the proposed merger with Nanometrics Incorporated. The plaintiffs in both actions sought various forms of injunctive relief including an order enjoining the Company and its board of directors from consummating the merger with Nanometrics.

The two proceedings were consolidated and heard as one case. On April 19, 2005, the Court issued a 30-day stay of all proceedings. On April 27, 2005, the plaintiffs scheduled a hearing on a motion to amend the complaint. The hearing was scheduled for June 9, 2005. On May 10, 2005 the Court issued an order dismissing the complaint for asserting derivative claims without complying with the rules governing derivative actions. Thereafter the Court removed the hearing from the calendar.

On July 18, 2005, a purported shareholder class action lawsuit asserting derivative claims was filed in Minnesota state court against the Company and the individual members of the board named above as well as Lynn J. Davis, who joined the board on March 30, 2005 (the "Board"). The lawsuit claims the directors have breached their fiduciary duties to the Company's shareholders in connection with their actions in approving the merger agreement with Nanometrics, Inc. and subsequently terminating that merger agreement and entering into a new merger agreement with Rudolph Technologies, Inc. The plaintiff seeks various forms of injunctive relief including an order enjoining the Company and the Board from consummating the proposed merger with Rudolph.

The plaintiff in the lawsuit filed on July 18, 2005 is Robert Etem, the owner of 4,200 shares of the Company's common stock. Mr. Etem was also a plaintiff in the lawsuit described above filed on February 14, 2005.

AVICI SYSTEMS: Parties Working on Revised NY Lawsuit Settlement---------------------------------------------------------------Parties submitted to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York documents for a revised settlement of the securities class action filed against Avici Systems, Inc., one or more of its underwriters of its initial public offering (IPO) and certain of its officers and directors.

On April 19, 2002, a consolidated amended class action complaint, which superseded these twelve purported securities class action lawsuits, was filed in the Court. The Complaint is captioned "In re Avici Systems, Inc. Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (21 MC 92, 01 Civ. 3363 (SAS)" and names as defendants the Company, certain of the underwriters of its initial public offering, and certain of its officers and directors.

The Complaint, which seeks unspecified damages, alleges violations of the federal securities laws, including among other things, that the underwriters of the Company's initial public offering improperly required their customers to pay the underwriters excessive commissions and to agree to buy additional shares of Company stock in the aftermarket as conditions of receiving shares in the Company's IPO. The Complaint further claims that these supposed practices of the underwriters should have been disclosed in the IPO prospectus and registration statement.

In addition to the Complaint against the Company, various other plaintiffs have filed other substantially similar class action cases against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies and their IPO underwriters in New York City, which along with the case against the Company have all been transferred to a single federal district judge for purposes of case management.

On July 15, 2002, the Company, together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the consolidated amended complaints against them on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. On October 9, 2002, the Court dismissed without prejudice all claims against the individual current and former officers and directors who were named as defendants in the Company litigation, and they are no longer parties to the lawsuit. On February 19, 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motions to dismiss filed by the issuer defendants and separate motions to dismiss filed by the underwriter defendants. In that ruling, the Court granted in part and denied in part those motions.

As to the claims brought against Avici under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws, the Court dismissed all of these claims with prejudice, and refused to allow the plaintiffs an opportunity to re-plead these claims against the Company. As to the claims brought under the registration provisions of the securities laws, which do not require that intent to defraud be pleaded, the Court denied the motion to dismiss these claims as to the Company and as to substantially all of the other issuer defendants as well. The Court also denied the underwriter defendants' motion to dismiss in all respects.

In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in the dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against any of the other issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants. The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against the underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied. In addition, the Company and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of their IPOs.

The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court. Formal settlement documents were submitted to the Court in June 2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, opposed preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of those cases. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in all respects but one. In response to this order, the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are in the process of submitting revised settlement documents to the Court. The underwriter defendants may object to the revised settlement documents. If the Court approves the revised settlement documents, it will direct that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and on the internet and mailed to all proposed class members. It will also schedule a fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

BINGHAM CAPITAL: SEC Sues Firm, Institutes Proceedings V. Trader----------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Barry Alan Bingham and Bingham Capital Management Corporation.

The Commission's complaint alleges that, from approximately April 2001 to approximately November 2002, Mr. Bingham used misrepresentations and omissions of material fact to defraud at least 22 investors in Bingham Growth Partners, L.P. (Growth Partners), a hedge fund that Mr. Bingham created and managed through Capital Management, an unregistered investment adviser.

The complaint further alleges that, over the lifetime of Growth Partners, Mr. Bingham offered and sold at least $1,826,218 worth of shares in the Fund, at least $459,483 worth of which were offered and sold on the basis of Mr. Bingham's representations to investors about the Fund's past returns. Additionally, the complaint alleges that, between July 2001 and November 2002, Mr. Bingham misappropriated approximately $141,637 of Growth Partners' assets, including as much as $34,638 in client assets as "soft dollar credits" generated from Growth Partners' trading commissions. The complaint alleges that, by November 2002, the assets of Growth Partners had been wholly depleted by a combination of Mr. Bingham's trading losses and his misappropriations.

The Commission charged Mr. Bingham and Capital Management with violating of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act. The Commission seeks against Mr. Bingham and Capital Management permanent injunctive relief from future violations, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains with prejudgment interest, and civil penalties.

Also, on August 23, the Commission announced the issuance of an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 against Bingham based on his criminal conviction in U.S. v. Barry Bingham, 1:05-CR-0184-BBM (N.D. Ga.).

In the Order, the SEC's Division of Enforcement alleges that, on April 28, 2005, Bingham entered a plea of guilty to a single count of felony securities fraud in violation of Title 15 of the United States Code, Sections 78j(b) and 78j(ff). The criminal information to which Mr. Bingham pled guilty alleged that, from in or about September 2001 through in or about August 2002, Bingham fraudulently induced various individuals to invest in Growth Partners. On June 30, 2005, Mr. Bingham was sentenced to 12 months and one day in prison followed by three years of supervised release, fined $1,000, and ordered to pay criminal restitution of $105,572.00.

The Division of Enforcement further alleges that, during a portion of his misconduct, from approximately August 2000 through November 2002, Mr. Bingham, individually and acting through Capital Management, engaged for compensation in the business of advising clients on investing in securities. Bingham was also associated with a broker-dealer registered with the Commission from approximately April 2002 through at least November 2002.

A hearing will be scheduled before an administrative law judge to determine whether the allegations contained in the Order are true, to provide Mr. Bingham an opportunity to respond to these allegations, and to determine what sanctions, if any, are appropriate in the public interest. The Order requires the Administrative Law Judge to issue an initial decision no later that 210 days from the date of service of this Order, pursuant to Rule 360(a)(2) of the Commission's Rules of Practice. (In the Matter of Barry Alan Bingham - Rel. 34-52318; File No. 3-12015) The suit is styled, SEC v. Barry Alan Bingham and Bingham Capital Management Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:05-CV-2187, NDGA Aug. 23, 2005. (LR-19345)

CANADA: Ontario Judge Allows SARS Suit V. Province to Proceed-------------------------------------------------------------An Ontario judge recently ruled that two lawsuits launched over Ontario's handling of the SARS crisis two years ago could proceed, The CBC News reports. Court papers reveal that both lawsuits charge that the government put the province's economic interests ahead of the safety of its nurses.

One of the suits is a $600 million class action by Andrea Williams, a nurse who became infected with SARS on the verge of a second outbreak in May 2003. Ms. Williams was exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) while undergoing a surgical procedure at North York General Hospital in Toronto.

In that suit, Ms. Williams seeks compensation from the city of Toronto, the province of Ontario and the Canadian federal government alleging that health officials prematurely declared an end to the deadly disease in early May. Specifically, the suit charges the defendants with negligence, as hundreds of people were allegedly exposed to the disease during what Ms. Williams' lawyers have dubbed "SARS 2" - the period between April 20 and July 31, 2003, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (February 25, 2004) reports. Ms Williams is seeking up to $449 million, in compensation, which is the equivalent of 600 million Canadian dollars.

Patricia LeFebour, one Ms. William's attorneys, said that her client wore a mask when admitted to the hospital, but alleges that in the recovery room, she wasn't given one. "Because of her training as a registered practical nurse, she was concerned that certain protocols weren't followed by other medical staff, most notably the wearing of masks," Ms. LeFebour told the Globe and Mail.

The other lawsuit is a $12 million suit brought by the family of nurse Nelia Laroza, who died in June. Ms. Laroza was an orthopedic nurse at the same hospital. Like Ms Williams, Ms. Laroza became infected during a second wave of the disease.

A former employee at one of the California stadiums the Company serves initially filed the suit in California state court, alleging violations of local rules relating to overtime wage, rest and meal period and related laws with respect to this employee and others purportedly similarly situated at any and all of the facilities the Company serves in California. The Company had removed the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California, but in November 2003 the court remanded the case back to the California Superior Court. The purported class action seeks compensatory, special and punitive damages in unspecified amounts, penalties under the applicable local laws and injunctions against the alleged illegal acts.

The parties have agreed to non-binding mediation in September 2005. The Company believes its business practices are, and were during the period alleged, in compliance with the law.

In August 2004, a second purported class action, Perez v. Volume Services Inc, d/b/a Centerplate," was filed in the Superior Court for Yolo County, California. "Perez" makes substantially identical allegations to those in "Holden." Consequently, the Company demurred and the case was stayed on November 9, 2004 pending the resolution of "Holden." As in "Holden," the Company believes that its business practices are, and were during the period alleged in "Perez," in compliance with the law.

According to the ODI, certain of the tires specifically on sizes P195/70R14 and P185/65R14, manufactured between November 21, 2004 and May 14, 2005, can lose air pressure causing the tires to run under-inflated. An under-inflated condition will cause the tire to wear prematurely and result in an early failure. Should the tire fail while the vehicle is in use, a vehicle crash could occur.

As a remedy Cooper tire will replace the affected tires free of charge. The recall is expected to begin during August 2005.

eFUNDS CORPORATION: Reaches Settlement For AZ Securities Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------eFunds Corporation reached a settlement for the consolidated securities class action filed against it, its former chief executive and two of its former chief financial officers in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona.

The Consolidated Amended Complaint (Complaint) filed in this Action alleged, among other things, that during the period from July 21, 2000 through October 24, 2002 the defendants made false and misleading statements and omissions of material facts and that the plaintiff and other members of a putative class of shareholders suffered damages as a result.

This Complaint was dismissed by order of the Court in July 2004. The plaintiffs appealed this order of dismissal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in August 2004. At the request of the parties, the Court vacated the original briefing schedule of this appeal and the Court has not established a new briefing schedule. The plaintiffs and the defendants in this action have reached a tentative settlement of this matter under which the defendants would pay the purported class $2.55 million. The tentative settlement is subject to initial documentation, confirmatory discovery, final documentation and approval by the Court.

FLORIDA: Residents to Get Windfall From Incinerator Suit--------------------------------------------------------Nora Williams will soon get a payout from the city to move away from the Northwest Jacksonville home she's lived in for 30 years, a home that's right next to Brown's Dump, where toxic ash from the city's old incinerators is buried.

Mrs. Williams along with her six children have all had health problems and she estimates she's lost a dozen pets due to the alleged contamination. She told First Coast News, "At one point I was believing that someone was poisoning the animals. And in a sense they were being poisoned."

Court documents revealed that the payout is part of the $75 million settlement the city struck with some 4,500 residents who are part of a class action lawsuit claiming they were exposed to toxic ash from Jacksonville's now-demolished incinerators.

Under the proposed settlement, the Families would receive about $17,000 each on average, however money will be awarded on a points system, based on length of exposure to the toxins, among other factors. City Council too still needs to approve the settlement plan before any payout is made.

GENERAL REINSURANCE: Asks TN Court To Dismiss Lawsuits V. ROA-------------------------------------------------------------General Reinsurance Corporation asked the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee to dismiss the ten lawsuits filed against it by doctors, hospitals and lawyers that purchased insurance through Reciprocal of America (ROA) or certain of its Tennessee-based risk retention groups. These complaints seek compensatory, treble, and punitive damages in an amount plaintiffs contend is just and reasonable.

Seven complaints were initially filed. The Company is also subject to actions brought by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, as Deputy Receiver of ROA, the Tennessee Commissioner of Insurance, as Liquidator for three Tennessee risk retention groups, and a federal lawsuit filed by a Missouri-based hospital group.

The first of these actions was filed in March 2003 and additional actions were filed in April 2003 through July 2004. In the action filed by the Virginia Commissioner of Insurance, the Commissioner asserts in several of its claims that the alleged damages being sought exceed $200 million in the aggregate as against all defendants. These ten cases are collectively assigned to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Tennessee for pretrial proceedings. The Company has filed motions to dismiss all of the claims against it in these ten cases and the court has not yet ruled on these motions. No discovery has been initiated in these cases.

The suit is styled "In Re Reciprocal of America (ROA) Sales Practices Litigation, case no. 2:04-md-01551-JDB," filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of Tennessee under Judge J. Daniel Breen. Representing the plaintiffs are:

GENERAL REINSURANCE: Asks AL Court To Dismiss Conspiracy Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------General Reinsurance Corporation asked the Circuit Court of Montgomery County Alabama to dismiss the consolidated class action filed against it by a group of Alabama hospitals.

Two suits were initially filed against the Company. The first suit was filed in the Circuit Court of Montgomery County by a group of Alabama hospitals that are former members of the Alabama Hospital Association Trust (AHAT). This suit alleged violations of the Alabama Securities Act, conspiracy, fraud, suppression, unjust enrichment and breach of contract against the Company and virtually all of the defendants in the federal suits based on an alleged business combination between AHAT and Reciprocal of America (ROA) in 2001 and subsequent capital contributions to ROA in 2002 by the Alabama hospitals. The allegations of the AHA Action are largely identical to those set forth in the complaint filed by the Virginia receiver for ROA. The Company previously filed a motion to dismiss all of the claims in the AHA Action. The motion was granted in part by an order in March 2005, which dismissed the Alabama Securities Act claim against the Company and ordered plaintiffs to amend their allegations of fraud and suppression.

Plaintiffs in the AHA Action filed their Amended and Restated Complaint in April 2005, alleging claims of conspiracy, fraud, suppression and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Company. The Company filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the Amended and Restated Complaint in May 2005. The Special Master appointed by the court heard arguments on July 13, 2005 and recommended denial of the motion on July 22, 2005.

The second suit, also filed in the Circuit Court of MontgomeryCounty, was initiated by Baptist Health Systems, Inc., a former member of AHAT, and alleged claims identical to those in the initial AHA Complaint, plus claims for breach of fiduciary duty and wantonness. These cases have been consolidated for pretrial purposes. Baptist filed its First Amended Complaint in April 2005, alleging violations of the Alabama Securities Act, conspiracy, fraud, suppression, breach of fiduciary duty, wantonness and unjust enrichment against the Company.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss all counts of the Amended and Restated Complaint in May 2005. The Special Master heard arguments on July 13, 2005 and on July 22, 2005, recommended dismissal of the claim under the Alabama Securities Act, but recommended denial of the motion to dismiss the remaining claims. The AHA Action and the Baptist action claim damages in excess of $60 million in the aggregate as against all defendants.

GENERAL REINSURANCE: Faces Consolidated Amended Securities Suit---------------------------------------------------------------General Reinsurance Corporation faces a consolidated amended class action filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, styled "In re American International Group Securities Litigation, Case No. 04-CV-8141-(LTS)."

The suit is a putative class action asserted on behalf of investors who purchased publicly-traded securities of American International Group (AIG) between October 1999 and March 2005. The Company and its former Chief Executive Officer Ronald Ferguson are identified as defendants in this matter. The Complaint alleges that AIG and certain other defendants violated federal securities laws, but does not assert any causes of action against the Company or Mr. Ferguson. Plaintiffs' counsel in this action have filed a motion for leave to amend their Complaint.

On June 7, 2005, the Company received a second Summons and Class Action Complaint in a putative class action asserted on behalf of investors who purchased AIG securities between October 1999 and March 2005, captioned "San Francisco Employees' Retirement System, et al. vs. American International Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 05-CV-4270," United States District Court, Southern District of New York. The Complaint alleges that AIG and certain other defendants violated federal securities laws, and that the Company aided and abetted securities fraud or conspired to violate federal securities laws.

Both actions have been assigned to the same judge. At a July 2005 conference, the court ruled that the plaintiffs in case no. 04-CV-8141 would be lead plaintiffs. The court has not yet ruled on those plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint, nor has the court established a schedule for responses to the complaint or any other further proceedings.

According to ODI, on certain 2003 through 2004 school buses that were manufactured between August 17 and October 29, 2004, The amount of adhesive applied to the roof seams is inadequate for the type of adhesives used which fails to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 221, "School Bus Body Joint Strength."

GUAM: Mike Phillips Says $60M EITC Settlement Still in Effect-------------------------------------------------------------A $60 million tax settlement agreed upon last year remains in effect until a renegotiated $90 million settlement is approved in federal court, attorney Mike Phillips told Attorney General Douglas Moylan recently, The Pacific Daily News reports.

Mr. Phillips responded to an ultimatum by A.G. Moylan, who wanted to know which agreement he intends to follow, since Mr. Phillips signed both. Delaying the payments will cost the government more money, according to A.G. Moylan. Mr. Phillips represents low-income taxpayer Julie Santos and others in a class action lawsuit to force the government to pay the Earned Income Tax Credit to eligible taxpayers. Taxpayers have been unable to claim the tax credit, which is for the working poor, for more than a decade after the Carl Gutierrez administration determined it was an un-funded federal mandate.

Though the policy of denying the tax credit continued into the current administration, Lieutenant Governor Kaleo Moylan and the attorney general signed a $60 million settlement with Mr. Phillips last year. It would pay taxpayers about half what they are owed and allow them to claim the tax credit from now on.

However, Gov. Felix Camacho objected to the terms of the agreement and negotiated a new $90 million deal with Mr. Phillips in June that includes two additional tax years and which names a specific funding source, 15 percent of the money set aside for tax refunds each year. Mr. Phillips previously stated that the new agreement provides full compensation for recent tax years and reduced compensation for past tax years. The attorney general though objected to the higher settlement saying that it places a greater financial burden on the government.

Two federal court judges decided that the governor, and not the attorney general, has the authority to administer territorial tax issues. Mr. Phillips thus noted those decisions in his recent response to A.G. Moylan. Specifically, Mr. Philips wrote, "In light of the district court's recent decisions and orders, I am not sure of your authority to now demand the earlier settlement agreement govern. Instead of threatening the EITC class, you should address your concerns to the governor."

Julie Babauta Santos, represented by Mr. Phillips, filed a class action lawsuit in February 2004 to force the government to pay up and to resume yearly payments of the ETIC, which was suspended by the government since 1998, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 20, 2004) reports.

The government then agreed to a settlement and promised to pay about half of what is currently owed over the next nine years and by agreeing to pay the tax credits in full from now on. The tax credit, which was created in 1973, is an incentive for the working poor. The settlement would pay about $60 million, about half of the estimated $120 million owed to taxpayers.

Gov. Camacho had originally filed documents in the District Court of Guam opposing the settlement with concerns that making a payment commitment would violate the Illegal Expenditures Act. However, Magistrate Judge Joaquin Manibusan recently signed an order approving the request by the parties to enter mediation.

In September 2004, Elizabeth Hathaway filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of herself and all current and former account executives employed by the Company, seeking back wages, interest and attorneys' fees.

On March 11, 2005, Ms. Hathaway and the Company reached a settlement for an additional $1.4 million. The court preliminarily approved the settlement on June 23, 2005. The settlement is subject to final court approval and certain conditions, such as a cap on the number of class members who may elect to opt out.

HOMESTORE INC.: Asks NY Court To Dismiss AOL Securities Lawsuit---------------------------------------------------------------Homestore, Inc. asked the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to dismiss it from the class action styled "Stichting Pensioenfonds ABP v. AOL Time Warner. et. al."

The case was originally filed in July 2003 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Time Warner (formerly, AOL Time Warner), current and former officers and directors of Time Warner and America Online, Inc. (AOL), and Time Warner's outside auditor alleging that Time Warner and AOL made material misrepresentations and/or omissions of material fact in connection with the business of AOL both before and after the merger of AOL and Time Warner in violation of federal securities laws and constituting common law fraud and negligent misrepresentation.

In adding the Company as a defendant, the plaintiff, a Dutch pension fund, alleges that the Company and four other third parties with whom AOL did business and who are also named as defendants, aided and abetted the alleged common law fraud and themselves engaged in common law fraud as part of a civil conspiracy. The allegations against the Company, which are based on the factual allegations in the first amended consolidated class action complaint and other filings in the Company's Securities Class Action Lawsuit, are that certain former officers of the Company knew of the alleged fraud at AOL and knowingly participated in and substantially assisted that alleged fraud by negotiating, structuring and participating in numerous "triangular" round trip transactions with AOL and others. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of compensatory and punitive damages.

HONOLULU FORD: Settles HI Suit Over License, Documentation Fees---------------------------------------------------------------Honolulu Ford Inc. could provide as much as $1.6 million in in-kind services to settle a class action lawsuit involving license and documentation fees that the auto dealership charged thousands of customers, according to a proposed settlement, The Honolulu Star-Bulletin reports.

Though still requiring approval by state Circuit Judge Sabrina McKenna, the settlement would provide certificates redeemable for about $117 in maintenance services to as many as 14,100 customers who bought cars and trucks from the dealership between 1999 and 2005.

The settlement came after Judge McKenna rejected several allegations made under plaintiff Candy Silva's overarching claim that the dealership's license and documentation fees were unfair and deceptive. In addition to rejecting several of the allegations, the judge also eliminated class action status for most of the case, thus other customers seeking to make those claims would have had to sue individually.

Judge McKenna's earlier rulings left intact a specific claim that the two fees are unfair and deceptive because they are duplicative. The judge's rulings also left standing allegations that Honolulu Ford never studied the paperwork-processing costs that the documentation fee supposedly covered and unfairly deceived customers into thinking the documentation fee was mandatory when it was not.

Under the proposed settlement, customers will receive certificates redeemable for: a free oil change, tire rotation, brake inspection and safety inspection. The certificates though are redeemable only for new vehicles bought from the dealership.

Honolulu Ford's attorney, Gary Grimmer told Honolulu Star-Bulletin that the dealership agreed to settle the suit since it would cost less than continuing to fight the lawsuit and that the dealership wanted to assure customers of its commitment to honesty and quality service.

Judge McKenna recently gave preliminary approval to the settlement with a hearing for final approval is scheduled for next month. Customers who want to opt out of the settlement have until early September to contact plaintiffs' attorneys George Van Buren and Paul Alston.

KMART CORPORATION: SEC Files Financial Fraud Suit V. Ex-CEO, CFO ----------------------------------------------------------------The Securities and Exchange Commission filed charges against two former top Kmart executives for misleading investors about Kmart's financial condition in the months preceding the company's bankruptcy. According to the Commission's complaint, former Chief Executive Officer Charles C. Conaway and former Chief Financial Officer John T. McDonald are responsible for material misrepresentations and omissions about the company's liquidity and related matters in the Management's Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) section of Kmart Corporation's Form 10-Q for the third quarter and nine months ended October 31, 2001, and in an earnings conference call with analysts and investors.

The Commission alleges that, in the MD&A section, Mr. Conaway and Mr. McDonald failed to disclose the reasons for a massive inventory overbuy in the summer of 2001 and the impact it had on the company's liquidity. For example, the MD&A disclosure attributed increases in inventory to "seasonal inventory fluctuations and actions taken to improve our overall in-stock position." The Commission alleges that this disclosure was materially misleading because, in reality, a significant portion of the inventory buildup was caused by a Kmart officer's reckless and unilateral purchase of $850 million of excess inventory. According to the complaint, the defendants dealt with Kmart's liquidity problems by slowing down payments owed vendors, thereby effectively borrowing $570 million from them by the end of the third quarter. According to the complaint, Mr. Conaway and Mr. McDonald lied about why vendors were not being paid on time and misrepresented the impact that Kmart's liquidity problems had on the company's relationship with its vendors, many of whom stopped shipping product to Kmart during the fall of 2001. Kmart filed for bankruptcy on January 22, 2002.

The Commission's complaint, which was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, charges Mr. Conaway and Mr. McDonald with violating Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, and aiding and abetting violations of Sections 10(b) and 13(a) of the Exchange Act and Rules 10b-5, 13a-13, and 12b-20 thereunder by Kmart, and seeks as relief permanent injunctions, disgorgement with prejudgment interest, civil penalties and officer and director bars.

The Commission acknowledges the assistance of the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Michigan and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The SEC's Kmart investigation is continuing. The suit is styled, SEC v. Charles C. Conawayand John T. McDonald, Jr., 05 Civ. 40263, P. Gadola, J., E.D. Michigan, filed August 23, 2005. (LR-19344; AAER-2295)

The surface coating of some flame guards on these bamboo torches and replacement canisters can absorb the fuel and ignite. This can cause the torch and nearby combustibles to catch on fire, posing a risk of burn injuries and property damage. Lamplight Farms has received 33 reports of torches catching on fire. There were six reports of minor injuries and nine reports of minor property damage.

These 5-foot-tall Tikir bamboo torches consist of a bamboo pole with a weaved basket at the top and a metal flame guard, which is a circular black piece that holds the wick in place and attaches to the fuel canister. The recall includes the Tikir Beachcomber, Seagrass and Sandpiper model torches. The recall also involves replacement canisters that have the metal flame guards. Recalled units have the following UPC numbers: 086861010372 (Beachcomber), 086861013335 (Seagrass), 086861010457 (Sandpiper) and 076354995262 (Replacement Canister). The UPC number and the model name are written on the packaging or attached tag.

Manufactured in China, the torches and replacement canisters were sold at Wal-Mart, The Home Depot, Lowe's and other home and hardware stores nationwide from December 2004 through July 2005 for between $5 and $6. The replacement canisters were sold for about $1.40.

Consumers should immediately stop using these torches and contact Lamplight Farms to determine if they are included in the recall. If so, they will receive free replacement flame guards.

LEADIS TECHNOLOGY: CA Court Consolidates Securities Fraud Suit--------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Northern District of California consolidated the securities class actions filed against Leadis Technology, Inc., certain of its officers and its directors.

On March 2, 2005, a purported securities class action suit was filed, alleging the defendants violated Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1933 by making allegedly false and misleading statements in the company's registration statement and prospectus filed on June 16, 2004 for the Company's initial public offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages on behalf of a class of purchasers that acquired shares of the Company's common stock pursuant to the Company's registration statement and prospectus. The claims appear to be based on allegations that at the time of the IPO demand for the company's OLED (color organic light-emitting diodes) products was already slowing and that the company failed to disclose that it was engaging in overshipments of its OLED product. A similar additional action was filed on March 11, 2005.

LIONBRIDGE TECHNOLOGIES: Parties Submit Revised Suit Settlement ---------------------------------------------------------------Parties in the securities class action filed against Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. are revising the settlement for the suit, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York and is styled "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al." (01-CV-6770)."

The suit also names as defendants certain of its officers and directors, and certain underwriters involved in the Company's initial public offering. The complaint in this action asserted, among other things, that the Company's initial public offering registration statement contained misstatements and/or omissions regarding the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering to the underwriters' customers. In March 2002, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York entered an order dismissing without prejudice the claims against the Company and its officers and directors (the case remained pending against the underwriter defendants).

On April 19, 2002, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint naming as defendants not only the underwriter defendants but also the Company and certain of its officers and directors. The amended complaint asserts claims under both the registration and antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws relating to, among other allegations, the underwriters' alleged conduct in allocating shares in the Company's initial public offering and the disclosures contained in the Company's registration statement.

The Company understands that various plaintiffs have filed approximately 1,000 lawsuits making substantially similar allegations against approximately 300 other publicly traded companies in connection with the underwriting of their public offerings. On July 15, 2002, the Company together with the other issuers named as defendants in these coordinated proceedings, filed a collective motion to dismiss the complaint on various legal grounds common to all or most of the issuer defendants. In October 2002, the claims against officers and directors were dismissed without prejudice.

In February 2003, the Court issued its ruling on the motion to dismiss, ruling that the claims under the antifraud provisions of the securities laws could proceed against the Company and a majority of the other issuer defendants. In June 2003, the Company elected to participate in a proposed settlement agreement with the plaintiffs in this litigation. If ultimately approved by the Court, this proposed settlement would result in a dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims in the litigation against the Company and against any other of the issuer defendants who elect to participate in the proposed settlement, together with the current or former officers and directors of participating issuers who were named as individual defendants.

The proposed settlement does not provide for the resolution of any claims against underwriter defendants, and the litigation as against those defendants is continuing. The proposed settlement provides that the class members in the class action cases brought against the participating issuer defendants will be guaranteed a recovery of $1 billion by insurers of the participating issuer defendants. If recoveries totaling $1 billion or more are obtained by the class members from the underwriter defendants, however, the monetary obligations to the class members under the proposed settlement will be satisfied.

In addition, Lionbridge and any other participating issuer defendants will be required to assign to the class members certain claims that they may have against the underwriters of their IPOs. The proposed settlement contemplates that any amounts necessary to fund the settlement or settlement-related expenses would come from participating issuers' directors and officers liability insurance policy proceeds as opposed to funds of the participating issuer defendants themselves. A participating issuer defendant could be required to contribute to the costs of the settlement if that issuer's insurance coverage were insufficient to pay that issuer's allocable share of the settlement costs.

Consummation of the proposed settlement is conditioned upon obtaining both preliminary and final approval by the Court. Formal settlement documents were submitted to the Court in June 2004, together with a motion asking the Court to preliminarily approve the form of settlement. Certain underwriters who were named as defendants in the settling cases, and who are not parties to the proposed settlement, have filed an opposition to preliminary approval of the proposed settlement of those cases. On February 15, 2005, the Court issued an order preliminarily approving the proposed settlement in all respects but one. In response to this order, the plaintiffs and the issuer defendants are in the process of submitting revised settlement documents to the Court. The underwriter defendants may object to the revised settlement documents. If the Court approves the revised settlement documents, it will direct that notice of the terms of the proposed settlement be published in a newspaper and on the internet and mailed to all proposed class members. It will also schedule a fairness hearing, at which objections to the proposed settlement will be heard. Thereafter, the Court will determine whether to grant final approval to the proposed settlement.

The suit is styled "Samet v. Lionbridge Technologies, Inc. et al. (01-CV-6770)," related to "In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21-MC-92 (Sas)," filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, under Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. The plaintiff firms in this litigation are:

MACATAWA BANK: Faces Several Suits V. Trade Partners Viaticals--------------------------------------------------------------Macatawa Bank Corporation faces several class actions related to its acquisition of Trade Partners, Inc. of the former Grand Bank, which is involved in purchasing and selling interests in viaticals which are interests in life insurance policies of the terminally ill or elderly.

A lawsuit was filed in April 2003 by John and Kathryn Brand in Oklahoma state court against Grand Bank, the Company, Trade Partners and certain individuals and entities associated with Trade Partners. The complaint seeks damages for the asserted breach of certain escrow agreements for which Grand Bank served as custodian and escrow agent. The Company and Grand Bank have answered this complaint, denying the material allegations and raising certain affirmative defenses. The trial court had entered an order in February 2005 staying this case, but the stay order was reversed on appeal in May 2005. No trial date has yet been set.

In May 2003, a purported class action complaint was filed by Forrest W. Jenkins and Russell S. Vail against the Company and against LaSalle Bank Corporation in the United States District Court for the District of Western Michigan. The purported class included investors who invested in limited liability companies formed by Trade Partners. On November 6, 2003, the court permitted the plaintiffs to amend their complaint to expand the purported class to include all individuals who invested in Trade Partners viatical investments. The class has not been certified. The court had stayed this action to avoid interference with the process of the receivership proceedings, but the stay was lifted in July 2005. The plaintiffs allege that Grand Bank breached certain escrow agreements, breached its fiduciary duties, acted negligently or grossly negligently with respect to the plaintiff's investments and violated the Michigan Uniform Securities Act. The amended complaint seeks certification of the action as a class action, unspecified damages and other relief.

In late July 2005 counsel to the Trade Partners Receiver filed another purported class action on behalf of Kelly Priest and certain trusts controlled by Gary Towle and his wife, making substantially the same allegations as in the Jenkins complaint but on behalf of a class which is asserted to comprise all investors who are holders of allowed claims in the Trade Partners receivership.

MERCK & CO.: 20 New Zealanders Plan to Join Lawsuit Over Vioxx--------------------------------------------------------------At least 20 New Zealanders who took the now recalled painkiller Vioxx are planning to sue its United States manufacturer, Merck & Co. after a multi-million dollar payout in a Texas case, The Seven.com.au reports.

The Kiwis are joining hundreds of Australians pursuing legal action against the arthritis drug maker, which was ordered through a ruling by a Texas jury to pay about $253 million to the widow of a man who died from heart problems after taking the drug.

The Texas case involves, Texan Carol Ernst, who is seeking compensation for the death of her husband Robert, allegedly of arrhythmia, in 2001. Mr. Ernst, a produce manager at a Wal-Mart near Fort Worth who ran marathons and worked as a personal trainer, took Vioxx for eight months to alleviate pain in his hands until he died in his sleep, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

Mrs. Ernst's lawsuit alleges that Merck & Co. knew of the dangers of using Vioxx years before it recalled the drug. However, the Company allegedly ignored those concerns in favor of aggressive marketing for a multibillion-dollar seller, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 27, 2005) reports.

The case was the first of 4,200 other suits that have been filed in the United States and thousands more from other countries that are being prepared to reach trial after the drug's withdrawal last September. Introduced in 1999 and part of the Cox-2 inhibitor class of anti-inflammatory painkillers, Vioxx was taken by hundreds of thousands of people, including about 15,000 in New Zealand.

One Australian law firm representing about 170 people (including 20 New Zealanders) was expecting to file their claims in a United States court within the next two months. Spokesman Damian Scattini told the New Zealand Herald that the Texas decision was encouraging. According to him, "It does mean a jury of ordinary citizens has looked at the behavior of Merck and found it wanting."

Wellington lawyer John Miller, an expert on Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC) legislation, told Seven.com.au that anyone injured by medical treatment was entitled to claim ACC and to ask ACC to help him or her sue overseas companies. He pointed out, "There is provision in the legislation for that ... certainly if ACC ends up paying out millions and millions of dollars in compensation, they might encourage someone to take a case against the manufacturer and get some of their money back."

MICROSOFT CORPORATION: SD High Court to Hear Legal Fees Dispute---------------------------------------------------------------Approximately two years ago, Microsoft Corporation agreed to pay millions of dollars to settle class action antitrust lawsuits in South Dakota, however the company continues to argue that a circuit judge awarded excessive legal fees to its opponents in the case, The Associated Press reports.

Thus, on August 31, 2005, the South Dakota Supreme Court will hear arguments in Microsoft's attempt to throw out the nearly $2.3 million in legal fees and expenses awarded to the lawyers who represented consumers in the cases. The software giant argues that the lawyers should get no more than $389,000 in fees and about $22,000 in expenses. Additionally, Microsoft contends that the legal fees were excessive and unreasonable, since lawyers used information from cases in other states to negotiate a settlement nearly identical to those from other states. The company also pointed out that the legal fees are also equal to about half the total settlement Microsoft will pay to customers and schools.

In its written arguments to the high court, Microsoft claims, "This was a tagalong action in every sense and at every stage. It broke no new ground, but merely applied to South Dakota a template cut by other lawyers in other states."

However, in a response to Microsoft's allegations that they merely followed precedents set in cases from other states, attorneys who won the legal fees countered that the amount approved by the circuit judge is reasonable and justified by the work they did in the cases. One attorney even said, "Nothing could be further from the truth."

A number of cases stemming from a federal court ruling that Microsoft abused its power to maintain its monopoly on the Windows operating system were filed around the nation claiming that the software giant violated state antitrust laws and laws against unfair competition. One South Dakota case was consolidated with others from around the nation in federal court, while three were consolidated in state court.

In an agreement that settled the three class action antitrust lawsuits in South Dakota court along with similar lawsuits in several other states, Microsoft agreed in October 2003 to give vouchers worth millions of dollars to customers who had bought its operating software from March 1996 through December 2002. The vouchers, each worth $5 or $12 depending on the product a customer had purchased, was to be used for buying hardware, operating systems, software and computer gear from various vendors, including Microsoft. Under the settlement's stipulations half the unused vouchers were to be given to schools to help needy children.

In South Dakota, the maximum amount that could be claimed was $9.3 million, however officials expected only a fraction of the eligible customers would file claims. Court documents indicate only an estimated $466,500 would be paid in vouchers to South Dakota customers, with more than $4.4 million to be given to schools.

After the settlement, Circuit Judge Lori Wilbur of Pierre awarded the lawyers who brought the case fees and expenses of more than $1 million, which she later doubled to more than $2 million. With expenses added, the total award to the lawyers was nearly $2.3 million. In awarding the fees, Judge Wilbur said that it was justified by that fact that the lawyers' efforts led to a substantial success, took nearly five years, involved contested hearings and appeals, involved a risk because there was no guarantee of compensation, and involved a lengthy delay in payment for their services.

Various attorneys from South Dakota and other states were involved in the case, however two of the lead lawyers were Mark Moreno of Pierre and Ben Barnow, a Chicago lawyer who took part in similar lawsuits in a number of states. Court documents filed by Microsoft indicate Mr. Moreno would be compensated at $600 an hour, while Mr. Barnow would get $1,000 an hour.

Microsoft argues that that the fee awards were excessive because they far surpassed the $150 to $175 an hour typical in central South Dakota. In addition, the company pointed out that the award is also excessive because it would amount to five times the $466,500 in vouchers that customers were expected to claim or 47 percent of the entire $4.9 million settlement if payments to schools are included. Attorneys for the software giant even contend in their written arguments, "The $2.3 million award to the lawyers threatens to cause the public to think poorly of our courts and is contrary to public policy."

Attorneys who filed the class action lawsuits though argued that the award of fees and expenses is reasonable because Microsoft has agreed to large enhancements in legal fees in antitrust lawsuits settled in other states. The lawyers also argued that the award is just 27 percent of total benefits received by South Dakotans if payments to schools and the legal fees themselves are counted as part of those benefits. Finally, the attorneys also pointed out that the hourly fees were proper because of the complexity of the case, the challenge of establishing Microsoft's liability and damages, and the fact that Microsoft paid its own lawyers high fees.

NICOR GAS: Reaches Settlement For IL Mercury Injury Litigation--------------------------------------------------------------Nicor Gas Company reached a settlement for lawsuits filed against it, related to its historical use of mercury in various kinds of company equipment.

The Company is a defendant in several private lawsuits, all in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, seeking a variety of unquantified damages (including bodily injury, property and punitive damages) allegedly caused by mercury-containing regulators.

Under the terms of a class action settlement agreement, the Company will continue, until 2007, to provide medical screening to persons exposed to mercury from its equipment, and will use its best efforts to replace any remaining inside residential mercury regulators by 2006. The class action settlement permitted class members to "opt out" of the settlement and pursue their claims individually. The Company is currently defending claims brought by 28 households.

NICOR GAS: IL Property Owners Launch Suit V. Oak Park Facility--------------------------------------------------------------Nicor Gas Company continues to face class actions filed in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, alleging among other things, that the ongoing cleanup of a former manufactured gas plant site in Oak Park, Illinois is inadequate.

In December 2001, a purported class action lawsuit was filed against Exelon Corporation, Commonwealth Edison Company and the Company. Since then, additional lawsuits have been filed related to this same former manufactured gas plant site. These lawsuits seek, in part, unspecified damages for property damage, nuisance, and various personal injuries that allegedly resulted from exposure to contaminants allegedly emanating from the site, and punitive damages.

The plaintiff alleges deceptive practices relating to the marketing and sale of the Gas Line ComfortGuard service offered by Nicor Services. The plaintiff also alleges violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act and unjust enrichment. The plaintiff is seeking damages in an amount equal to the total Gas Line ComfortGuard charges paid by the plaintiff and the putative class members, punitive damages, and attorney's fees and costs.

OREGON: Archdiocese of Portland Notifies Parishioners of Lawsuit----------------------------------------------------------------The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon issued a notice to potential defendants in a bankruptcy case that is referred to as In re ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, and successors, a corporation sole, dba the ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, Debtor, Case No. 04-37154-elp11.

According to the notice, if you are or were a member of a parish or if you have made gifts, donations, and/or tithes to or for the benefit of any Catholic parish in Western Oregon that is part of the ARCHDIOCESE OF PORTLAND IN OREGON, your rights may be affected by the bankruptcy case, which is currently pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Oregon.

The notice further states that in the Bankruptcy Case, a lawsuit (Adversary Proceeding No. 04-03292-elp (the "Lawsuit") has been filed in the form of a Defendant Class Action Lawsuit. On July 22, 2005, the Court entered an order in the Lawsuit certifying a class of defendants that may include you.

Additionally, the notice stated that the Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing in the Lawsuit for October 11, 2005, at 9:30 a.m. at the United States Bankruptcy Court, 1001 S.W. Fifth Avenue, 7th Floor, Portland, OR, 97204, to consider requests by Class members to exclude themselves from the Class, to intervene and other questions pertaining to class certification. Requests to be excluded must be submitted in writing to Class Counsel and postmarked no later than October 3, 2005. The notice further states that any objections requests to intervene or other submissions pertaining to the Class must be filed with the Bankruptcy Court at the above address no later than October 3, 2005.

PACER INTERNATIONAL: Inks Settlement For CA Fiduciary Duty Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Pacer International, Inc. reached a settlement for the class action filed against two of its subsidiaries engaged in local cartage and harbor drayage operations, Interstate Consolidation, Inc., which was subsequently merged into Pacer Cartage, Inc., and Intermodal Container Service, Inc., in the State of California, Los Angeles Superior Court, Central District (the "Albillo" case).

The suit alleges, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair business practices, conversion and money had and received in connection with monies (including insurance premium costs) allegedly wrongfully deducted from truck drivers' earnings.

The plaintiffs and defendants entered into a Judge Pro Tempore Submission Agreement in October 1998, pursuant to which they waived their rights to a jury trial, stipulated to a certified class, and agreed to a minimum judgment of $250,000 and a maximum judgment of $1.75 million. In August 2000, the trial court ruled in the Company's favor on all issues except one, namely that in 1998 the Company's subsidiaries failed to issue to the owner-operators new certificates of insurance disclosing a change in the Company's subsidiaries' liability insurance retention amount, and ordered that restitution of $488,978 be paid for this omission. Plaintiffs' counsel then appealed all issues except one (the independent contractor status of the drivers), and the Company's subsidiaries appealed the insurance retention disclosure issue.

In December 2003, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision as to all but one issue, reversed the trial court's decision that the owner-operators could be charged for the workers compensation insurance coverage that they elected to obtain through the Company's subsidiaries, and remanded back to the trial court the question of whether the collection of workers compensation insurance charges from the owner-operators violated California's Business and Professions Code and, if so, to determine an appropriate remedy. The Company sought review at the California Supreme Court of this workers compensation issue, and the plaintiffs sought review only of whether the Company's subsidiaries' providing insurance for the owner-operators constituted engaging in the insurance business without a license under California law. In March 2004, the Supreme Court of California denied both parties' petitions for appeal, thus ending all further appellate review.

As a result, the Company successfully defended and prevailed over the plaintiffs' challenges to core operating practices of the Company, establishing that the owner-operators were independent contractors and not employees of the Company and the Company may charge the owner-operators for liability insurance coverage purchased by the Company. Following the California Supreme Court's decision, the only remaining issue is whether the Company's subsidiaries' collection of workers compensation insurance charges from the owner-operators violated California's Business and Professions Code and, if so, what restitution, if any, should be paid to the owner-operator class. This issue was remanded back to the same trial court that heard the original case in 1998.

In the fourth quarter of 2004, the trial court set the schedule for the remand trial and ordered each of the parties to present its case to the court by way of written submissions of the affidavits, records and other documentary evidence and the legal arguments upon which such party would rely in the remand trial. Following these submissions, the court would then determine whether to schedule and hear oral testimony and argument. During the second quarter of 2005, and following extensions of filing deadlines, the parties delivered their respective evidentiary submissions and initial briefs to the court. The court extended into the third quarter the deadlines for filing final response and reply briefs.

During the second quarter of 2005 the Company also engaged in earnest discussions with the plaintiffs in an attempt to structure a potential settlement of the case within the original $1.75 million cap but on a claims-made basis that would return to the Company any settlement funds not claimed by members of the plaintiff class. The Company believes that the ongoing cost of litigating the final issue in the case (including defending appeals that the plaintiffs' counsel has assured would occur if the Company were to prevail in the remand trial), taken together with the original $488,978 restitution award for the Company's failure to disclose the change in its liability insurance retention amount, would exceed the net liability to the Company of a final settlement on a claims-made basis within the cap of $1.75 million.

During the discussions that occurred during the second quarter, the Company reached an agreement in principle with the plaintiffs to settle the litigation on a claims-made basis within the cap of $1.75 million. The settlement agreement is subject to signing of definitive documents and approval of the court.

The same law firm prosecuting the "Albillo" case has filed a separate class action lawsuit in the same jurisdiction on behalf of a putative class of owner-operators (the "Renteria" class action) who are purportedly not included in the "Albillo" class. The claims in the "Renteria" case, which is being stayed pending full and final disposition of the remaining issue in "Albillo," mirror those in "Albillo," specifically, that the Company's subsidiaries' providing insurance for their owner-operators constitutes engaging in the insurance business without a license in violation of California law and that charging the putative class of owner-operators in "Renteria" for workers compensation insurance that they elected to obtain through the Company's subsidiaries violated California's Business and Professions Code. The Company believes that the final disposition of the insurance issue in "Albillo" in the Company's favor precludes the plaintiffs from re-litigating this issue in "Renteria."

PROGRESS ENERGY: NY Court Dismisses Securities Fraud Lawsuit ------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with prejudice the consolidated securities class action filed against Progress Energy, Inc. on November 15,2004.

On February 3, 2004, the Company was served with a class action complaint alleging violations of federal security laws in connection with the Company's issuance of Contingent Value Obligations (CVOs). The action was filed by Gerber Asset Management LLC and names the Company and its former Chairman William Cavanaugh III as defendants. The Complaint alleges that the Company failed to timely disclose the impact of the Alternative Minimum Tax required under Sections 55-59 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code) on the value of certain CVOs issued in connection with the Florida Progress Corporation merger. The suit seeks unspecified compensatory damages, as well as attorneys' fees and litigation costs.

On March 31, 2004, a second class action complaint was filed by Stanley Fried, Raymond X. Talamantes and Jacquelin Talamantes against William Cavanaugh III and the Company alleging violations of federal securities laws arising out of the Company's issuance of CVOs nearly identical to those alleged in the February 3, 2004 Gerber Asset Management complaint. On April 29, 2004, the Honorable John E. Sprizzo ordered among other things that the two class action cases be consolidated, Peak6 Capital Management LLC shall serve as the lead plaintiff in the consolidated action, and the lead plaintiff shall file a consolidated amended complaint on or before June 15, 2004.

The lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on June 15, 2004. In addition to the allegations asserted in the Gerber Asset Management and Fried complaints, the consolidated amended complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose that excess fuel credits could not be carried over from one tax year into later years. On July 30, 2004, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the complaint; plaintiff submitted its opposition brief on September 14, 2004. The Court heard oral argument on the Company's motion to dismiss on November 15, 2004.

On June 28, 2001, a class action complaint was filed against the Company in Orange County, California Superior Court by a former employee, who worked in the position of general manager. A second similar class action complaint was filed in Orange County, California Superior Court on December 21, 2001, on behalf of another former employee who worked in the positions of general manager and assistant manager. On May 16, 2002, these two cases were consolidated into one action.

These cases currently involve the issue of whether employees and former employees in the general and assistant manager positions who worked in the California units during specified time periods were misclassified as exempt and deprived of overtime pay. In addition to unpaid overtime, the claimants in these cases seek to recover waiting time penalties, interest, attorneys' fees and other types of relief.

RUBIO'S RESTAURANTS: Consumers Launch CA Suit For Fake Lobster--------------------------------------------------------------Rubio's Restaurants, Inc. faces a class action filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on behalf of consumers who claim that the Company inappropriately named some of its lobster menu items.

The suit, filed by consumer fraud lawyer Ray E. Gallo, alleges that the lobster in the restaurant's "lobster burrito" is instead "langostino," a small crayfish-or-shrimp-like creature caught mainly off the coast of Chile, commonly called Red or Yellow Prawns, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 1,2005) reports. The claimants in this case are seeking damages in an unspecified amount to reimburse purchases of lobster menu items.

SINGAPORE: Lawsuit V. Raffles Town Club Ends With $15M Award------------------------------------------------------------The Raffles Town Club saga concluded on a high note for some 5,000 members with the Court of Appeal awarding $15 million to them, which translates to $3,000 per member, The TODAYonline, Singapore reports.

In order to fight the $5 million in damages it was ordered to pay to its members earlier this year, the Raffles Town Club recently went before the Court of Appeal. The award stems from a class action lawsuit, which is the first of its kind in Singapore that was brought by club members in November 2001, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 22, 2005) reports.

Six months ago, the members were awarded $1,000 each for the loss of use and enjoyment of the club, after it was found to have 17,000 members, instead of 7,000 as claimed. However, both sides decided to appeal the ruling, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (July 22, 2005) reports.

In court last month, lawyers acting for the club conceded it did breach its contract to provide a premier club, however they argued that having more members actually benefited the rest as it prevented the club from going bankrupt, a situation prevalent on similar clubs during that period. This did not go down well with the judges who, in the 23-page written judgment, said the club should not be permitted to shift its responsibilities. The judges pointed out that the issue of the club going under was immaterial. The court increased the compensation based on a formula proposed by the members' lawyers.

Approximately 4,895 founding members served a writ of summons to the High Court and the club's lawyers, demanding a full refund of the $28,000 they each paid as joining fees. The plaintiffs had sued the club on the grounds of misrepresentation and/or breach of contract, an earlier Class Action Reporter story (November 20, 2001) reports. According to court documents, in November 1996, the Company sent out a prospectus inviting some members of the public to join the club. The prospectus comprised a letter of invitation, a document giving general information and a brochure.

The plaintiffs base their claims on representations made in these documents, including representations, among others, that:

(1) the club would be without peer in terms of size of facilities and sheer opulence;

(2) the club's exclusive and limited memberships would be fully transferable;

(3) there would be two classes of individual members - a limited number of exclusive transferable founder members at $28,000, and a second class of members who would pay $40,000 for their membership.

The suit argues that these representations became part of the contractual terms between members and the Company.

The plaintiffs, led by public relations consultant Alan Lee, claim they were misled into joining what they thought was an "exclusive" club for 5,000 to 7,000 members. During the recent highly publicized court battle between former Company directors, however, for control of the proprietary club, the members discovered they are part of a crowd of 19,000 persons.

Company director Robert Lai said "If you had told us in November 1996 that there would be 19,000 members, and we joined the club with that knowledge, we would not be unhappy." Mr. Lai was one of the members who led the class action, but has since dropped out, since he bought his membership on the open market and does not qualify as a founding member.

The plaintiffs stand to recover $137 million in joining fees, which is the biggest claim against a local private club and thus making the lawsuit the largest class action of its kind in Singapore.

TRANSACTION SYSTEMS: NE Court Certifies Desert Orchid Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------The United States District Court for the District of Nebraska certified as a class action suit the case, Desert Orchid Partners, LLC, et al. V. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., et al., No. 02 CV 553, No. 02 CV 561. The case was filed on behalf of all persons who purchased the common stock or other securities of TSA between January 21, 1999 and November 18, 2002.

In a release by Goodkind Labaton Rudoff & Sucharow LLP, the Summary Notice of Pendency of Class Action, on March 22, 2005, the Court issued an Order certifying the case to proceed as a class action pursuant to Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Class certified by the Court is defined as all persons or entities that purchased TSA securities from January 21, 1999 through and including November 18, 2002.

The suit is styled, Desert Orchid Partners, LLC, et al. V. Transaction Systems Architects, Inc., et al., 8:02-cv-00553-JFB-TDT, which is pending in United States District Court for the District of Nebraska with the Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon presiding. The following represents the Plaintiff/s:

The stitching that attaches the webbing to the carrier/sling can break, posing a fall hazard to young children. ZoloWear has received one report of the webbing coming apart from the sling, but the baby was not in the sling at the time. The company has not received any reports of falls or injuries.

The recalled slings are made of 100-percent cotton fabric or 97 percent cotton/ 3 percent Lycra with two pieces of webbing holding the rings to the fabric. Solid natural color and five prints (Splash, Pink and Black Stripe, Pink and Brown Stripe, Pink Punch and The Hamptons) make up the lots included in the recall. A large white label sewn on the pocket of the slings reads "Zolo." ZoloWear slings should have three rows of stitching securing the webbing and fabric together. Some of the slings in these lots have short webbing, so only one row of stitching holds the webbing in place.

Manufactured in the United States, the infant carrier/slings were sold at the ZoloWear.com Web site, individual distributors, and five children's boutiques in California, Hawaii and Texas sold these slings from May 2005 through August 2005 for between $70 and $90.

Consumers should stop using these carriers/slings immediately and call ZoloWear for instructions on having the carriers/slings repaired.

Consumer Contact: For additional information, contact ZoloWear, Inc. at (888) 285-0044 between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday, or e-mail the firm at recall@zolowear.com, or go to the firm's Web site at www.zolowear.com/recall.

New Securities Fraud Cases

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Bernard M. Gross Lodges Securities Suit in PA---------------------------------------------------------------The Law Offices Bernard M. Gross initiated a class action suit, numbered 05-4414, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania before the Honorable Thomas N. O'Neill, Jr. against defendants ATI Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATYT), Kwok Yuen Ho, Chairman of the Board of ATI; David E. Orton, President and Chief Executive Officer; and Patrick G. Crowley, Chief Financial Officer and Senior Vice President-Finance, on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of ATI Technologies, Inc.(Nasdaq: ATYT) between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005.

The complaint charges ATI Technologies, Kwok Yuen Ho, David E. Orton and Patrick G. Crowley with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented these material adverse facts:

(1) the Company was selling desktop and notebook products with lower and lower profit margins;

(2) ATI's gross margins were being weakened by high sales of its IGP (integrated graphics processor) products, which have profit margins well below the corporate average;

(3) the Company was earning lower-than-anticipated yields on certain products due to operational issues in its own packaging and test areas of its manufacturing process;

(4) the Company was experiencing production/design/yield issues with its R520 chip, the release of which was six months behind schedule;

(5) the Company was losing market share to arch-rivals Nvidia Corp. and Intel Corp. causing downward pressure on ATI's prices;

(6) ATI lost market share to Nvidia in the enthusiast and mainstream markets following the launch of Nvidia's SLI (scalable link interface) chipset in early 2005. The SLI chipset enables the use of two graphics cards instead of one in a desktop computer, allowing desktop users to upgrade graphics at cheaper prices, a product ATI will not have on the market until early August 2005;

(7) ATI lost market share to Intel in the notebook computer market, traditionally an area of strength for ATI, because as would later be revealed, Intel's Alviso chipset offers "more than-adequate" graphics performance for many notebook computer users; and

(8) despite defendants' previous statements to the contrary, a fire at one of the Company's primary suppliers in Taiwan was preventing the Company from receiving necessary supplies.

As a result of defendants' false and misleading Class Period statements and omissions, ATI's stock traded at inflated levels, increasing to as high as $20.66 per share on December 3, 2004, allowing the Company's top officers and directors to sell or otherwise dispose of more than $54 million worth of their own shares during November and December 2004 at inflated prices of between $18 and $20 per share. However, after the true status of the Company's business performance and financial status were unveiled in June 2005, the Company's shares plummeted, erasing over $2.2 billion in market capitalization.

The case is pending in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, against the company and certain key officers and directors.

The action charges that defendants violated the federal securities laws by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements to the market throughout the Class Period which statements had the effect of artificially inflating the market price of the Company's securities. No class has yet been certified in the above action.

ATI TECHNOLOGIES: Schiffrin & Barroway Lodges Stock Suit in PA--------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schiffrin & Barroway, LLP initiated a class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on behalf of all securities purchasers of ATI Technologies, Inc. (Nasdaq: ATYT) ("ATI" or the "Company") between October 7, 2004 and June 23, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges ATI, Kwok Yuen Ho, David E. Orton and Patrick G. Crowley with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. More specifically, the Complaint alleges that the Company failed to disclose and misrepresented the following material adverse facts, which were known to defendants or recklessly disregarded by them:

(1) that the Company substantially relied on its high-end offerings to fund other parts of its business;

(2) that the Company's high-end offerings failed to offset the negative impact of weak gross margins and declining average sales prices in consumer electronics;

(3) that the Company, due to production and design issues, was late to the market with its R520 chip, thereby losing market share to both Nvidia Corp. and Intel Corp., which caused downward pricing pressure for ATI;

(4) that the Company's inventory levels were at a historic high, while current sales levels were insufficient to support the existing cost base; and

(5) that the defendants' positive statements about the Company's progress and future growth lacked in all reasonable basis.

On June 6, 2005, ATI announced that it expected its revenue for the third quarter 2005 to be well below previously forecasted results. On this news, shares of ATI fell $1.58 per share, or 10.35 percent, on June 6, 2005, to close at $13.68 per share. On June 23, 2005, ATI issued its results for the third quarter 2005 and again lowered its forecast. On this news, shares of ATI fell $0.98 per share, or 7.67 percent, on June 23, 2005, to close at $11.80 per share.

RED ROBIN: Lerach Coughlin Lodges Securities Fraud Suit in CO-------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP ("Lerach Coughlin") initiated a class action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado on behalf of purchasers of Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Inc. ("Red Robin") (NASDAQ:RRGB) common stock during the period between November 8, 2004 and August 11, 2005 (the "Class Period").

The complaint charges Red Robin and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Red Robin, together with its subsidiaries, operates a casual dining restaurant chain that serves gourmet burgers in the United States and Canada.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants caused Red Robin's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels by issuing a series of materially false and misleading statements regarding the Company's business and prospects and by concealing improper self dealing by the Company's CEO. This caused the Company's stock to trade as high as $62.38 per share. Defendants took advantage of this inflation, selling or otherwise disposing of 320,000 shares of their Red Robin stock then valued at more than $17 million. On August 11, 2005, Red Robin reported that Q2 2005 results would be worse than expectations due to charges and adjustments to various accounts and that its Chairman, President and CEO had resigned in light of an investigation into his personal use of Company assets. On this news, Red Robin's stock collapsed to as low as $44.13 per share before closing at $45.55 per share on volume of 9.8 million shares.

According to the complaint, the true facts, which were known by each of the defendants but concealed from the investing public during the Class Period, were as follows:

(1) the Company lacked requisite internal controls and corporate governance procedures to safeguard the Company from abuse by the CEO of his position at the Company;

(2) contrary to defendants' claims of fiscal 2005 growth and profitability, the Company was actually on track for lower results than represented;

(3) the Company lacked the necessary personnel to issue accurate financial reports and projections; and

(4) as a result of (a)-(c) above, the Company's projections for fiscal year 2005 were grossly inflated.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of Red Robin common stock during the Class Period (the "Class"). The plaintiff is represented by Lerach Coughlin, which has expertise in prosecuting investor class actions and extensive experience in actions involving financial fraud.

SYMBOL TECHNOLOGIES: Schatz & Nobel Lodges Securities Suit in NY----------------------------------------------------------------The law firm of Schatz & Nobel, P.C., initiated lawsuit seeking class action status in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of all persons who purchased the securities of Symbol Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: SBL) ("Symbol") between May 10, 2004 and August 1, 2005, inclusive (the "Class Period"). Also included are all those who acquired Symbol's shares through its acquisition of Matrics, Inc.

The Complaint alleges that Symbol, and certain of its officers and directors, violated federal securities laws by issuing misleading public statements. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued numerous positive statements about the Company's performance and future prospects. The complaint alleges that defendants failed to disclose and/or misrepresented the following adverse facts:

(1) that Symbol had inadequate and deficient internal and financial controls;

A list of Meetings, Conferences and Seminars appears in eachWednesday's edition of the Class Action Reporter. Submissionsvia e-mail to carconf@beard.com are encouraged.

Each Friday's edition of the CAR includes a section featuringnews on asbestos-related litigation and profiles of targetasbestos defendants that, according to independent researches,collectively face billions of dollars in asbestos-relatedliabilities.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof are $25 each. For subscription information, contact Christopher Beard at 240/629-3300.